Nikon 50mm 23yr old vs new fx kit 24-85

[juno_first]

Having just got a full frame Nikon D610 I swore I noticed a loss in quality with the kit lens 24-85 compared to an old 50mm that was really cheap 23years ago.
Obviously a fixed focal length will always be better but I never noticed any difference with my previous D90 DX 12mp camera as I did a few tests with the 50mm vs its DX kit lens 18-105.

Theres an even bigger drop in quality difference when stopping the zoom down.
Both shots below were at f5.6 which is probably the best aperture for each lens & taken in about the same place/time with the zoom at 50mm.
Im not moaning & just thought you guys would be interested in seeing a real world difference.

Right now I'm saving for the Sigma 35mm f1.4
My advice is if going full frame stay away from a cheap zoom or go fixed if possible.

24-85

50

magnify 24-85

magnify 50

 

[Amp34]

Not much difference IMO, at least compared to what looks like compression/extreme noise reduction.

TBH though if a company can't make a good 50mm prime then they have something going very wrong!

Aside from that many photographers are using lenses of 25+ years old (at least design wise) for birding. It's not that old in lens age.

 

[englishpremier]

There's definitely more detail in the crops of the 50mm lens.

 

[D.P.]

F/5.6 definitely won't be the sharpest aperture on the 24-85 but the result isn't surprising either way. 50mm is the easiest focal length to make on a 35mm camera.

 

[juno_first]

Yeah, unsurprising results really. Interestingly the 24-85 always seems to make the colours more vibrant, even with the camera jpegs.

Here are todays pics anyway...
Flickr link

 

[Amp34]

I was wondering that, are these jpegs out of the camera or converted RAW?

 

[juno_first]

These jpegs are straight out the camera. I've noticed other pics from the zoom & they all seem a bit colourful. I can only think it must be the in camera lens profile correction or something?